Comments on poor quality dental images being due to LNT

["Parry, Don (CIS)" <dparry@Michigan.Gov>]

I sent a similar post last week when the topic was discussed, but it never

got posted, probably due to a problem on my end.  Thought I would try one

last time.



Don Parry



---------------



I stay on the sidelines with most of this LNT stuff, but I am going to step

in and point out a couple of things about dentists.  I don't know much about

Nuclear Power Plants, environmental monitoring, WIPP, Yucca or most other

issues discussed on this list... but I have probably done at least 3000

dental inspections over the years and can safely say I have seen everything

from the highest tech digital systems to machines that are one step up from

banging two rocks together to make x-rays.  I am sure the Dentist in

question is a great guy and "very progressive" as Dr. Weiner said, but there

is no way his poor image quality is due to state regulations, NCRP, NRC, LNT

or EIEIO.  His image is more likely substandard due to either improper x-ray

machine timer settings, wrong type or concentration of develoer solution,

wrong deveolpment time/temperature combination or improper safelight

conditions.  Dentists with poor image quality often blame everyone else in

sight and then when you point out the substandard processing and exposure

conditions they turn to their dental hygienist and blame them.  



No state is going to mandate that the Dr uses any specific film.... There is

no way the lawyers would sign off... guidance is written all the time, but

the regulations all say something like...



i) the speed of film or screen and film combinations shall be the fastest

speed consistent with the diagnostic objective of the examinations;



ii) the radiation exposure to the patient shall be the minimum exposure

required to produce images of good diagnostic quality



The above two are right from the New Mexico Regs...  



Dental intraoral film, even the E or F speed, is direct exposure film and

will give good resolution if properly processed in correct safelight

conditions.  The tolerance on exposure level and especially on safelight

conditions is much narrower for the faster dental film, but it is certainly

capable of producing diagnostic films if properly used.  All states are

going to leave it to the Doctors medical judgment on what film to use to get

diagnostic images.  But they can, and many do, require them to follow the

proper exposure and processing conditions recommended by the manufacturer.

This is as much to provide the best quality image as it is to reduce any

dose.  The two generally go hand in hand.  Other advantages of the fast film

are fewer repeats due to motion since the on times are cut in half.



I am sorry Dr. Weiner had a hard time at the dentist's office, but the

dentist is solely responsible for the quality of his images and it is a cop

out to point the finger at the state or any other regulatory body... it

belongs on his shoulders.......



Don Parry





Donald E. Parry

Health Physicist

Michigan Department of Consumer & Industry Services

Radiation Safety Section

Phone : 517-241-1989  Fax: 517-241-1981

mailto:don.parry@cis.state.mi.us

http://www.cis.state.mi.us/bhs/rss/









************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/